Talk:Cherchell

Cherchell or Cherchel
Cherchell is listed on the Encarta map and travel sites. Cherchel is the 1911 Encyclopedia entry. Petersam 06:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian settlement?
I removed this unsourced text from the "Ancient history" section:


 * The town was originally an ancient Egyptian settlement dating back to 1500 BC. In the town archaeologists have found a lower half of a seated Egyptian divinity in black basalt, bearing a cartouche of the Pharaoh of Egypt Thutmose I.

I haven't seen evidence anywhere else that Egypt in 1500 BC (the New Kingdom) controlled anything west of Siwa. I've never read of pharaonic Egypt establishing colonies by sea, which I'm sure a settlement at Cherchell would have required. Even in the Ptolemaic era, when the Egyptians were in contact with the whole Mediterranean world, their realm only extended into eastern Libya (around Cyrene). The Britannica and Catholic Encyclopedia articles linked here say nothing of an Egyptian settlement, only of a Carthaginian one. And even if the Thutmose-era statue was found at Cherchell, it could have been an import, perhaps from the Roman era. Therefore, I am removing the text until it can be cited. A. Parrot (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

School essay?
This article reads like a school essay: the style is poor, it's full of unsubstantiated claims, it's long and repetitious, it expresses surprise that a city founded as a colonia (i.e. a settlement of Roman soldiers) should be "Romanised", and that cities in the Roman world should be loyal to "Rome"... It needs a lot of attention. Deipnosophista (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't founded as a Roman colony (albeit colonization involved a notional 'refounding' of the town). That said, you're right that
 * 2002 Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia.
 * Children's Britannica – Volume 1, Abbey to Arabs, Algeria
 * aren't terribly good sources. It's great that someone put some work into the page but the information from those kid encyclopedias should probably be cited to sth more grown-up. I'll add some bits from Lipinski. — Llywelyn II   21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the first half of the history section and the bits about the church, if you don't mind going through the more recent parts. — Llywelyn II   14:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman colony
This old reference also mentions it under the name "Julia Caesarea"; if that's accurate, it should be mentioned with a newer, better source. — Llywelyn II   00:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

ʾIy-ḥol
Ok, I found the Wiktionary entry for the Punic word for "island". There's no "I" in the middle of it. It's also unclear what the "I" would be other than the same letter as "Y".

There doesn't seem to be any online source for the Punic word for "sand".  seems to be borrowed from Hebrew. How sure is Lipinski that that was the name? or was it just a conjecture based on Hebrew presumably being very close to what the Punic would've been? (Based on the Hebrew forms, "" is really either "" or "". No one seems to have either 𐤀‬𐤉𐤇𐤅𐤋 or 𐤀‬𐤉𐤇𐤋 encoded on the internet yet, though. Maybe it's hidden in a pdf somewhere?

Sorry not to be able to check this myself, but Google Books absolutely refuses to show or allow a search of the text on Lipinski's p. 405. — Llywelyn II   23:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)